Note 1 — Chapter I · INTRODUCTION.

In the headings of this book, the form of the name Charlemagne is used throughout, in preference to the English form Charles the Great, or Charles I. (which suggests Charles Stuart), or the Latin form Carolus Magnus, or the grotesque combination of the Teutonic Karl with the Latin Magnus. The editor does not overlook the difficulties of the case. The word Charlemagne is conceded to be misleading because of its French form. It is natural to infer that the man so named was peculiarly connected with the French people or race. The fact is otherwise; for the illustrious leader of the Franks was much nearer akin to the Germanic and Teutonic peoples, than to the Gallic or French. The reader should therefore keep it in mind that Charlemagne was not a Frenchman, nor did he belong to the predecessors of the French, despite the form of his name. He was not king of the French, but “king of the Franks” as the author says above. And “with all his wide, far-reaching schemes, he remained, it would seem, at heart a ... Frank ... and we may conjecture that Neustria was to him as little of a homeland as Aquitaine or even Italy.” (See below, p. 280.) For the extent of his kingdom, which centred about the Rhine, not the Seine, see below, pp. 11, 12.

On the other hand, it may be said in favor of the form Charlemagne that it has not only obtained common usage, but it has the authority of Milton, Scott, and other English writers, while in the United States it is to-day the common, almost exclusive form. This seems to be sufficient reason for its adoption.